Re: ASA's "neutrality policy"

On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 19:26:47 -0800 (PST) Bill Hamilton
<williamehamiltonjr@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > However, when a YEC position is taken that the scientific
> community has
> > come to an erroneous conclusion about the age of the earth,
> whether through
> > deliberate intent to contradict the Bible or through other errors,
> then it
> > is tantamount to denying the integrity of science. We do not
> claim that
> > science is always right. Far from it. But charging the
> establishment with
> > bias and/or incompetence carries with it a very high bar of
> impeccable data,
> > very careful analysis, and reproducibility in several labs.
> Without such
> > quality of evidence, there is lack of integrity. In this case, it
> seems
> > that the ASA could and should speak out, without being in
> violation of its
> > neutrality policy. How to do that is another matter.
> >
> > Does this make sense? Have I erred somewhere in this
> thinking?
>
> Yes and no. Quite a number of years ago I read Davis Young's book
> "Christianity and the age of the earth" That book did an excellent
> job of
> refuting the YEC "Geologists are careless, stupid or atheists, or
> possibly all
> three" line. I was apalled, and that book was an important element
> in my
> pilgrimage from YEC to accepting an old earth and, eventually,
> common descent.
> As Davis does in his book, one way to refute YEC claims about the
> integrity of
> scientists is to describe the care scientists use in their
> investigations, and
> to describe the peer review process (we may not like what the
> referee says, but
> it does weed out the half-baked claims). I realize that's not as
> strong a
> response as you're probably looking for, but I've had my ears pinned
> back
> enough times by YEC's that I'm (probably too) cautious about strong
> responses.
>
> Bill Hamilton
> William E. Hamilton, Jr., Ph.D.
> 586.986.1474 (work) 248.652.4148 (home) 248.303.8651 (mobile)
> "...If God is for us, who is against us?" Rom 8:31
>
I too was taught YEC, but found it false when I first read some of the
original papers involving dating. I discovered that various radio-dates
could be off by no more than a factor of 2 or 3, not twice that many
orders of magnitude. I disagree that God could have created it that way
without being deceitful. His works in creation must agree with his words
in revelation.

Additionally, Michael Roberts reports that he checked many citations in
YEC articles and found they had misquoted or misrepresented virtually all
of them. Glenn Morton has collected material that devastates the
foundation of YEC. Plainly, what recent creationism and flood geology
presents is false. I have a clear description, on the highest authority,
of the father of lies. On what grounds should I seek to justify them?
Dave
Received on Wed Dec 14 23:29:14 2005